Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

lidden writes "The Nobel Prize in Physics 2005 has been awarded Roy J. Glauber "for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence". And John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch "for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique"."

The ambiguity of light (wave and/or particle) has always made my head spin. To think that a bulb gives off light in "infinite" (lower limit time angle of tau) blows my mind.

Affiliating light with quantum theory seems like a stretch as quantum theory answers seem deus ex machina to me. I'm sure "wiser" people give this discovery merit, but even the "advanced information" link is ambiguous.

If we can now comb out light frequencies to within 15 digits of accuracy, it seems like we can increase bandwidth over laser optics by many orders of magnitude. The long term gain in communications bandwidth could be huge if the technique is feasible cheaply by industry.

If this technique can somehow be utilized with the radio spectrum instead of light, I wonder if similar increases in data space could be realized. I never contemplated light to radio in the physical sense.

A fairly large part of physics and cosmology is mind blowing. That is why it is so interesting, at least to me. Forget quantum oddness, just consider some of the numbers. Try to get a real grip on things like 10^19 eV. The universe is truly, literally, awe inspiring.

With radio we already have much more sophisticated modulation methods. Most "light band" modulation today is basically an automated, binary version of Morse Code, still effectively in the Stone Age. We are currently just barely able to "tune" a light transmitter and receiver. DWDM is nowhere near the spectral density of current radio technology. We cannot do anything with light approaching phase shift modulation, spread spectrum techniques, code division muxing, hell even plain old FM in the "light band" is currently out of reach. While lasers could be compared to classic PLLs, currently they are not even close to being as useful in frequency modulation and demodulation applications.

He should have been more specific. Try to get a real grip on things like protons with energy of ~10^19eV. Especially since the theory predicts a mean free path that's way too short for any sources to reach us at that energy level (nothing fitting the energy bill that we know of close enough to Earth) Not to mention the question of what kind of sources would accelerate them to such energies.

I already guessed you were thinking of some high-energy particles (I'm physicist, therefore I know in which fields high eV units are used). However, I like to put things into perspective. Yes, 10^19 eV sounds enourmous, but you just have to rewrite it in other units to change that. Now, as energy of a single particle, it's of course incredibly high, but the point is, you really have to look at the system, not at the value in isolation.An elementary particle which has the same energy as a 1 kg mass at about

"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama."

"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama."

The other possibility is that this whole Universe is a stage for a much larger drama which is not a

And yet another possibility is that it IS the stage for the drama, but we're only still in the very beginning of the very first line of dialogue from the very first scene. For all we know, the drama could be set to unfold across the universe in later times (later on a cosmological scale). It's not for us to know, but it does make an interesting conversation topic;)

"We cannot do anything with light approaching phase shift modulation, spread spectrum techniques"Really? Google these terms and see what you get. PSM of Lasers can certainly be done. And I'll wager you a good deal of $$$ that there is quite extensive research in all of these areas in the Defense industry and telecom. If they can filter comb light in frequency [part of the reason they won the Nobel] then spread spectrum is possible. Possible is NOT equal practical. Practical has to be low cost and sturdy, e

COngratulations on not realisng that the fundamental properties of a laser do not make any kind of modulation viable."Complex" Modulation (eg FM, Spread Spectrum, OFDM) requires the ability to work with multiple frequencies, a laser, by the very physical nature of its design and fundamental principles is not capable of this. It is designed to produce a Monochromatic pulse of coherent photons (thats a bunch of photons of the same frequency and all in the same phase) you cannot "modulate" a laser. Im aware th

Bad news rf fans, AM, FM, PM, QAM, and noise modulation technologies as well as Crosscorrelation and autocorrelation are all available in the optical domain. The developement of these techniques over the past thirty to fourty years is what a great deal of the research in quantum optics and electro-optics fields has been all about. Did I mention heterdyne and homodyne beam detection or frequency mixing or doubling?

Quantum theory pretty much came out of studying light. Planck's constant, one of the defining characteristics of quantum theory was a result of Planck studying blackbody radiation. Same kind of radiation emmitted from a light bulb, just at a lower energy.

And the measurement process, which almost no one is in agreement about, is about the only thing in the theory that has elements of deus ex m

Here's what I don't get. The article states that a time measurement precision within the range of 1 part in 10^18 is now (soon) possible and will allow 'GPS and other things' to become more accurate. But 1 in 10^18 is a SINGLE ATTOSECOND per second!!! This is equivalent to something like measuring time to a precision of one second in a time period longer than the current age of the universe! How do you keep accurate time on a clock that precise? Simply wheeling it down the hall would be enough to intorduce

Yes, but don't forget that QM measurements don't negate relativity - this is the ultimate example of "to thine own self be true". Yes, wheeling it down the hall will change its timing relative to everything else that is not moving the same way. So as far as useful measurements go, anything which is measuring the device will have to be moving with it - which includes any "stationary" object on the entire earth, practically speaking. (Especially since they won't be moving it down the hall for that exact re

What's probably more useful, however, is that general relativity is fairly well understood from a mathematical standpoint. Id est, it is relatively simple (no pun intended) to calculate the time/space compression impact on two bodies whose relative speeds are known.

I think you're confused with special relativity, the theory that describes the effect of speed differences on measurements and the equivalence between mass and energy. It combines quite well with quantum mechanics. General relativity - about sp

It's not supposed to, but bear in mind that entanglement is
(apparently) a violation of causality, which is the essence of
relativity.

If I have 2 spin 1/2 particles, spaced 20,000 light-years
apart, their kets still superpose instantaneously (with no
informational lag when I make one measurement at one point in space),
so that's transmitting information superluminally. There's
demonstrations that only noise can be transferred this way,

Well, this is where the article glosses over a lot of difficulties. At these levels of precision, measuring the accuracy is tough, and an active area of research is just trying to send frequency standards down optical fibers without screwing them up.

When you try to get to one part in 10^18 relativistic effects due to the vibration of the optical table come into play. Forget about putting such a system on a satellite!

If we can now comb out light frequencies to within 15 digits of accuracy, it seems like we can increase bandwidth over laser optics by many orders of magnitude. The long term gain in communications bandwidth could be huge if the technique is feasible cheaply by industry.

It is unlikely right now that optical comb techniques will be applied to optical communications. The precision that these guys go for far exceeds anything needed in fiber communications.

Since this work was done in 1963, we can say with confidence that it led to great advances in communications and storage, and we're using them already. The Nobel Prize, especially in Physics, is entirely at the other end of the spectrum from a lot of the speculative stories on slashdot; it's often given in recognition of the lasting significance of work that's already made a difference.Thinking of light as ambiguous between a wave and a particle is a bit misguided; it's neither a wave nor a particle, but so

It's not that light sometimes acts like a wave and sometimes like a particle; light always acts in a consistent fashion, which has some features like waves, some like particles, and some unlike anything else.

True. More specifically, light and elementary particles such as electrons propagate as waves, but interact as particles. Still, light behaves more like waves and massive particles more like particles. It is rather hard to create a coherent particle wave consisting of multiple massive particles; any in

"f we can now comb out light frequencies to within 15 digits of accuracy, it seems like we can increase bandwidth over laser optics by many orders of magnitude. The long term gain in communications bandwidth could be huge if the technique is feasible cheaply by industry."

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes to mind. If you wanna have sharper frequency peaks, you gotta measure longer. This could be a problem.

I think you slighly misunderstand Heisenberg. As I see it, the relevant equation is delta E*delta t > h_bar/2 [gsu.edu], so if they increase the frequency enough, they're also gonna need to increase the energy used.

You probably don't mean deus ex machina [wikipedia.org], really, when you make the point that quantum theory seems forced. You're right -- the particles in quantum theory are not actually particles, they're quantizations that seek to capture the real-world effects of fluctuating energy fields by concentrating on the planck space with the maximum field energy at a given planck time. The only reason to do this

It's also amazing how long they took to award Hänsch, and then only 1/4th of the prize - Hänsch's discovered the monochromatic, tunable dye laser (essential to almost all laser spectroscopy application, at least until the semiconductor laser became usable, and still unparalleled in the high power range), saturation and polarization spectroscopy (techniques which allow for Doppler-free spectroscopy; again, essential techniques used in almost any laboratory where lasers are pointed at atoms), laser

It took the Nobel committee 42 years to decide that Glauber's work in quantum theory was worthy of their prize. Now that's what I call uncertainty.

The Nobel Committee does not want to impugn the integrity of the Prize by doling it out for science that does not pan out. They have to wait until the research is established to some degree. What would happen to the Prize if someone won for cold fusion? The Nobel Prize would be a joke.

Are you kidding? Glauber should have won this twenty years ago. His work on coherent states is the bedrock of modern quantum optics. For example, without coherent states, nobody would understand squeezed states. And for example, coherent states allow us to understand why the classical optics approximation works so well. I read his papers over and over in my Ph.D. research, and I'm shocked it's taken so long.

The (original) purpose of Nobel Prize was to encourage young gifted scientists, to give them recognition necessary to get funding for research. Obviously now it's just a sort of a medal for past achievement and adds absolutely nothing to science TODAY.

The (original) purpose of Nobel Prize was to encourage young gifted scientists, to give them recognition necessary to get funding for research. Obviously now it's just a sort of a medal for past achievement and adds absolutely nothing to science TODAY.

Umm... No. It's always been a medal for achievement, to quote from Alfred Nobel's will;

The whole of my remaining realisable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitut

I believe that the number of particles physicists currently use is not enough. Therefore I am now creating the foo-on, bar-on, and baz-on. Use 'em however ya like. You can send the Nobel stuff anytime.

Fermi also said that at a time when we were constantly discovering new mesons and baryons and QCD had not yet been developed to put it all together yet.These days we know that mesons are baryons are not fundamental. Remembering the names of the fundamental particles really isn't that hard and it's worth your time:

The German wikipedia and the Indonesian one has also three articles. Some of them are still to be considered stubs.

I would like you to invite to translate them into other languages (oops, I forgot Esperanto, there are already articles about them) and to contribute to those articles. We need freely licensed pictures of them and more details about their CV and their work.

Glauber didn't discover the laser, if this is what you mean. He provided the theory for quantum optics, which deals with quantum electrodynamical interactions of light and matter. Hall and Hänsch instead developed laser-based precision spectroscopy: in other words they used laser for high precision frequency measurements. Coherent optics is not just about laser, but what you can do with them.

The inventor of the comb-over patented [uspto.gov] his work in 1977, and won the igNobel prize [improbable.com] last year. I'm sure the comb-over technique operates in an optical frequency range in order to be effective.

The Nobel site clearly shows via pie-chart icons that each of the three winners only gets a fraction of that little medal. I hope they seriously do cut it and mail them the parts, because to give each a medal would be mathematically dishonest at best.

I also hope jealous laureates fight one another to gain their medal-pieces and complete the artifact Triforce-style. Mostly because the mental image amuses me.

I've noticed this happens every so often on Slashdot. (as well as rock stars, actors, etc.). Why do people feel the need to announce to the world that they met someone famous? It doesn't make the poster any more important and they certainly won't attain any fame themselves by associating their name with the famous person (especially via an essentially anonymous name on Slashdot).However, if someone said that John Hall was an ahole then, yeah, it's ok to defend the guy if you think that he isn't. Otherwi

In this case, they awarded half to Glauber for one piece of work and a quarter each to Hall and Haensch for a completely different piece of work. Can they recognize 5 different significant advances in the same year if they wish to?

And how many people can share a portion of a prize for a given piece of work? If 18 people participate in developing a quantum theory of Slashdot submission which ultimately ends up explaining life, the universe, and everything, do al

But, on the other hand, the peace prize has some special provisions for organizations. The head of an academic institution won't get the scientific prizes, no matter what the combined results from the school are.

I was an undergraduate student in one of Professor Glauber's courses at Harvard two years ago, and though I'm certainly no specialist on light or physics, I really enjoyed his course (The Nature of Light and Matter). It's one of the many Core Curriculum courses at Harvard, but it's taught by one of the few professors there worthy of calling himself a teacher. He has a great sense of humor. I'm glad someone who deserves some credit was able to earn it.

I took Professor Glauber's "Waves Particles and the Structure of Matter" through the Harvard Extension School as a high school senior over a decade ago.It was probably the best course I have ever taken in any subject, but certainly out of my physics classes I will always remember it very fondly for how he was able to combine very illustrative descriptions of theory with very good physical demonstrations.

Somewhat sadly, I eventually took up work in the computer field rather than stick with physics. So I can

Germany, the traditional powerhouse in physics and America shared this 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics. The interesting thing is the Glauber, the american scientist, was awarded 1/2 of the prize money (approx. 1.1 Million Euro), while Hänsch, from Germany, and Hall, from America, had to share the other half.Hall, 71, of Colorado University and Hänsch, 63, of the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics and Munich's Ludwig Maximilian University, share the other half of the prize "for their contribution

The interesting thing is the Glauber, the american scientist, was awarded 1/2 of the prize money (approx. 1.1 Million Euro), while Hänsch, from Germany, and Hall, from America, had to share the other half.
That's because they wanted to award equal shares for theoretical and experimental physics. Hall & Haensch are experimentalists.

As a grad student currently at JILA I'd like to say "Congratulations" to Jan Hall for his work on the frequency comb. It's been a good ride for JILA during my *ahem* years of graduate work here. Three Nobels (among many other awards) for Hall, Wieman, and Cornell, and even more accolades for Debbie Jin, Kapteyn and Murnane... It's been an honor to be able to talk, heck, be in the same building with these people.

No doubt random Internet crank is right and Harvard Nobel Laureate (and everyone in that field for decades after) is wrong.

You are welcome to argue substance of the critique (the gist of which is in post-1 [google.com] and post-2 [google.com]. The questions discussed there happen to be the topic of my masters thesis (in theoretical physics at Brown University). In the years since leaving academia to work in industry, I had followed the developments and studied the literature in this field. Basically the critique is not that Glauber

I haven't bothered to read the documents, but could this change the way sensors are designed? Currently, the sensor basically turn photons into electric current. If we could we simple mesure the wavelength and intensity, this could open the way up for radical new designs/implementations, right? Or am I just talking out of my ass here?